CHAPTER VII
CHAPTER VII
First PoINT OF THE THIRD ANSWER, IN WHICH
VOLUNTARY AND STRICT POVERTY ARE SHOWN TO
BE THE FOUNDATION OF EVANGELICAL PERFEC~
TION, AND PossIBLE OBJECTIONS ARE ANSWERED
ae ea HE Apostle Paul, the wise builder, says Leen f ; Toe that the foundation of the Christian i Cors3:10
( religion is Jesus Christ, for he teaches in the Epistle to the Corinthians that other foundation no one can lay, but ibid. 11 that which has been laid, which is Jesus
Lae ka] Christ. Now, this foundation is laid in our esses iy faith which this same Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, describes as the substance of things to be hoped for. And it is laid in our affections by love, of which Paul writes to the Ephesians: Being rooted and grounded
Heb. 11:1
Eph. 3:17 in love. Thus, he compares it to a foundation and a root.
The binding element of the two—the foundation and the root of the Christian religion —is faith which works through Gal. 5:6 charity, as shown in a gloss on the passage: Other foundaGor sill tion, etc., which says: "Faith, working through love, and laid as a foundation, prevents anyone from perishing.'"
In direct contrast with this foundation or root, there is covetousness, of which it is said in the Epistle to Timothy:
Covetousness is the root of all evils, and some in their eagerness to get rich have strayed from the faith. All evils
1 Tm. 6:10 certainly have their origin, support and increase in this root and in the pride that goes with it. Augustine shows covet~ ousness to be the foundation of the city of Babylon.'
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
2. Jesus Christ, the Origin of all good, the Foundation and Founder of the New Jerusalem who appeared to this end, that He might destroy the works of the devil, embraced with great eagerness the very opposite of such covetousness, advocating poverty by His example and preaching it by His word. Because the vice of covetousness and its disorder find their root in a disposition of the mind and their occa~- 1 Jn. 3:8 sion and fuel in things possessed externally, extirpation of it must apply to both in order that the damaging passion of greed and the alluring possession of earthly wealth may be given up both spiritually and materially. Commenting on this passage from Matthew: Peter addressed Him, saying, "Behold, we have left all," Bernard says: "This is excellent and should not be imputed to you as being unwise.
For the world with its lusts is passing away, and it is better to abandon such things than to be abandoned by them. And the best reason to avoid wealth is that it is impossible, or almost impossible, to have it without being attached to it.'
Mt. 19:27
1 Jn. 2:17
3. If this twofold abdication, of the world and of its lusts, also called poverty of the spirit,' is the means by which the root of all evil is perfectly cut off and the foundation of Babylon destroyed, we may conclude reasonably and certainly that this same poverty of the spirit, because of the analogy and closeness it has to what was said, is the root and foundation of that evangelical perfection by which we are conformed to Christ and planted with Him, and through which we become His dwelling place. For this reason, Christ Himself, when He explained perfection to His disciples on the Mount, placing upon the holy mountain, that is, in the mind of the apostles, the foundations of the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven, that is, the luminaries of evangelical perfection, and exalting the other
Ps. 86:1
Ap. 21:2
CHAPTER VII
virtues, began with the excellence of holy poverty when He said: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Later, when advising on how to be perfect,
He insisted first on the practice of poverty as He lived it, for He said: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor...; and come, follow Me." Jerome, commenting on this same passage, writes to Demetriades:
Mt. 5:3 ibid. 19:21
"It is an act of apostolic perfection and of perfect virtue to sell all one has and to give to the poor—thus becoming weightless and unimpeded and flying up with Christ toward heavenly delights.'® There are two aspects to the possession of temporal goods: ownership and use. Since the use of temporal goods is a necessary condition of the present life, evangelical poverty consists in renouncing the ownership and property of earthly things, but not their use, which must be limited, however, in the spirit of the Apostle's advice to Timothy: Having food and sufficient clothing, with these let us be content.
1 Tm. 6:8
4. Hence, the nature of evangelical perfection may be seen: it is the virtue which renounces temporal goods and by which a man lacking private property is sustained with things he does not own. Since the dominion over temporal goods may be given up in two ways, there are two ways of being sustained with what is not one's own. Correspondingly, there is a double mode and perfection in evangelical poverty. Since the dominion over things is twofold, that is, it may consist either in private or in common ownership, the one relating things to a person and the other to a group, and since it is possible to disclaim the former while retaining the latter, it is also possible to disclaim the latter together with the former. Hence, in parallel with this twofold mode of poverty, there will be two kinds of perfect profession of
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
poverty. In the one, a man renounces all private and personal dominion over temporal goods and is sustained by things he does not own, things that are not his but are shared with a community. In the other, a man renounces all dominion over temporal goods, both private and common, and is sustained by things that are not his but someone else's: his sustenance is kindly and justly provided by an outsider.
The first form of poverty prevailed among the company of the faithful of which it is said in the Acts: The multitude of the believers were of one heart and one soul, and not one of them said that anything he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. Commenting on Acts 4:32 this passage from the Scriptures, Jerome writes to Demetriades: "In the Acts of the Apostles, at the time when the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ was still warm and a faith still new was burning in the faithful, they used to sell whatever they owned, and bring the price of what they sold, and lay it at the feet of the apostles, in order to show that money was to be trodden underfoot, and distribution was made to each, according as anyone had need.'' Bede has ibid. 34-35 a gloss on the same passage, concerning how the form of monastic or cenobitic life was handed down: "Those who lived in such a way that all things were common to them in the Lord were called cenobites. And this manner of life is all the happier since it is an imitation of the life of the future, when all things will belong to all.'
5. But the exemplar and form of the second mode of poverty appeared even before the apostles, for it is Christ the Master of Perfection who instituted it for them when
He sent them out to preach, as said in Matthew: "Do not keep gold, or silver, or money in your girdles, nor wallet
Mt. 10:9f.
CHAPTER VII
for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staff; for the laborer deserves his living." And the gloss says here:
"He almost takes away the things indispensable for life lest those who teach that all things are in God's power be overconcerned with the morrow. Hence, they take with them not even what they need nor any supply of food nor the slightest thing besides their clothes.'
Thus does the Lord impose upon the apostles and preachers of truth a form of extreme and rigorous poverty to be observed by renouncing not only material possessions, but even money and other things by which a community's life is generally sustained and held together. Being poor men established in a state of supreme renouncement to ownership, they could take with them no money or food, they had to wear simple clothing and walk without shoes. Hence, in their deeds and their manner of life they would lift before them holy poverty as a standard of perfection. Christ observed in Himself this same perfect norm of poverty as a special prerogative which He established for the apostles to observe, and which He counseled to those who wished to follow in their footsteps.
6. John Chrysostom, in his Twenty-second Homily on Matthew, demonstrates this poverty of Christ: "Do not keep gold, or silver,...nor wallet for your journey. He gave an example of this by His deeds and then only enforced the corresponding precept by His words. He made
His speech acceptable by proving it first by His way of life.
When did He do so? Listen to Him: 'The Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.' This saying applies, not to HimMt. 8:20 self alone, but also to His disciples.'""°
There is also the gloss on this passage from Matthew:
The foxes have dens, etc. "Why do you seek to follow Me ibid.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
in the hope of worldly profit when you know that I do not even have the least shelter of My own?'
Were someone to say that Christ had no shelter of His own but shared one with the community, the same Chrysostom answers in his sermon on Judas: "Those," he says,
"who find their delight in the pomp of precious marble know Christ, the Lord of all, and are aware that He did not have a place to lay His head. Wherefore the disciples questioned Him and said: 'Where dost Thou want us to prepare for Thee to eat the passover?' Now, if Christ had shared a house with others, the disciples would have known it, and ibid. 26:17
Christ Himself would not have been in need of a place where He could lay His head and eat the Pasch. It is clear, then, from the disciples' question and their uncertainty concerning the house, that Christ had no shelter, either private or common."'"
Jerome, also, proclaiming the Lord's dire poverty, writes to Nepotianus: "It is shameful that consular lictors and soldiers keep watch before the door of a priest of the crucified and poor Lord who had to depend on others even for His food."'? Christ, like the poorest of the poor, lived on food that was not His own.
Bernard, in a sermon on this passage from Luke: When He was twelve years old... says with even greater clarity:
Lk. 2:42
"In order, O Lord, to conform Thyself to our poverty in all things, Thou didst liken Thyself to one of the many poor and didst beg Thy sustenance from door to door.
Who will grant me the favor of eating morsels obtained by begging, and of being satisfied with the remnants of this divine meal?'
Anselm, also, in his book "'On the Sacraments" has this to say: "Christ was poor to the point that, when He came
CHAPTER VII
into the world, He was not born in His own house but on another's land. Because of the inadequacy of the place, He was laid in a manger for brute animals. When He lived in cf. ibid. 2:7 cf. ibid. 9:58 cf. ibid. 23:53 the world, He had no place to lay His head. When He died,
He had not wherewith to cover His nakedness. And when He was dead, He had no shroud of His own, nor tomb, nor decent place where His lifeless body could be laid."""®
7. Hence, Christ was poor at His birth, poor during all the time of His life, and poor at the end.'® In order to make poverty lovable to the world, He chose a Mother most poor,
He willfully suffered the pains of poverty, and went about unshod as a man destitute and without resources.
Bede, speaking of the poverty of His Mother in his commentary on Mark, says of this passage from the Gospel: "If anyone
Jn. 12:26 serves Me, let him follow Me'': "Let us consider the road cf. Mk. 2:24 along which He walked so that we may deserve to follow
Him. Behold, when the time had come for Him to receive our nature, which He Himself had established, He, the Lord, the Creator of angels, came forth from a virgin's womb.
Unwilling to be born to this world in the midst of wealth, He chose parents who were poor. The lamb that was to be offered for Him was not available: His Mother gave two pigeons and a pair of turtledoves to be sacrificed instead.''""
In his Eighth Homily on Matthew, Chrysostom confirms this point: "As soon as the Virgin had given birth to a Child, she laid Him in a manger because there was no house
Lk... 237, to be found on account of the crowd that had gathered for the census. But what induced the Magi to adore? There was no visible greatness but a mere manger, a shepherd's cf. Mt. 2:11 shelter, and a mother in need—which demonstrates the Magi's simple wisdom."'* In his Homily on the Epiphany, the same Chrysostom says of them: "They saw a dark and
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
wretched hovel, better suited to animals than to men, where no one would have consented to live, unless he were forced by the hazards of a journey. They saw His Mother clothed in a single robe, suited rather to cover her nakedness than to adorn her body.''?t 8. The fact that Christ lived in extreme poverty is emphasized by a gloss on this passage from Mark, When He had looked around upon all things: "When He had looked around upon all things, to see if anyone would take Him in as a guest. So deep was His poverty and so little did anyone attend to His needs that He could find no shelter even in so great a city.""° And Bede writes of the same passage:
"We should realize that Christ was so poor that even in this great city He could find neither host nor home: He had to go out to a small villiage with Lazarus and his sisters.""*
Mk. 11:11
It is a fact, then, that Christ lacked not only a shelter, but also the money that would have provided it, since He
+ This gloss and the following are utterly unconvincing and reflect a medieval and western tendency to insist by every possible means on the wretchedness of Christ. They also demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of life-conditions in the Near-East in a rural and pastoral world where a good and strong craftsman, as Joseph is traditionally represented, would have led a life of simple ease.
It seems greatly insulting to accuse him of having brought the Virgin Mary to a filthy cave when the simplest portable tent would have provided a perfectly adequate lodging. The "'cave,"' then, must have been a place safer and more comfortable than a tent.
There is here excessive attention to the externals of poverty, as there was above to the externals of abstinence, and as there is throughout the work to the externals of-everything else.
The explanation of When He had looked around is so far-fetched that one wonders at the state of mind of the commentator. Why could not Christ have stayed with beloved friends in the suburbs simply because He preferred it to spending the night in a crowded city?
The blame for all this rests, not on Bonaventure, but on the spiritual climate of his time.
CHAPTER VII
had to go out of town under the pressure of necessity, and this on the very day He had entered it as a king riding an cf. Mk. 11:1-10 ass. The gloss on this passage from John: The Prince of Jn. 14:30 the World is coming, and in Me he has nothing, says even more clearly: ""The Lord refused to have anything He could lose; He was poor so that the devil would have nothing to take away."'? For any material object, owned either in common or privately, may be taken away or may perish.
Finally, Christ went unshod like a poor man, as Jerome writes in his letter to Eustochius: "The disciples were sent out to preach the new gospel unencumbered with shoes cf. Mt. 10:10 or tight garments made of skin. And the soldiers, when casting lots for the clothing of Jesus, found no leather shoes they could take. For the Lord could not have had what He had forbidden His followers to wear.'?? And so Christ, resembling the poorest man, had no shoes, yet he could not be without the necessary clothing. Since, however, He de~ sired to end His life in the nakedness of absolute poverty,
He chose to hang unclothed upon the cross.
9. And since it is for our sake, and not His own, that Christ the Master and Lord chose to assume poverty, showing us perfection through what He did, it follows that He set up absolute poverty as an example to be imitated by the holy apostles, the perfect followers of His holiness, as shown in Matthew, Mark and Luke. While such is evident from the text itself, it is so thoroughly confirmed by the cf. Mt. 10:9f.; Mk. 6:8f.; Lk. 9:3, 10:4 opinions of the saints that there remains not the slightest doubt. Commenting on this passage from Matthew: "Do not keep gold, etc.,"" Chrysostom says: 'With this single
Mt. 10:9 advice, He accomplished many things: one, He placed the apostles above suspicion; two, He relieved them of all care; three, He displayed His power, saying to them later: 'When
Lk 22:25
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
I sent you forth without purse or wallet or sandals, did you lack anything?' ''** And Chrysostom continues: "He was to send teachers throughout the world; and, for this reason,
He changed them, so to speak, from men into angels, relieving them of all solicitude for this life."*? And again:
"Behold how, by despoiling them of all things, He gave them all things: that is, by permitting them to enter with empty hands into the houses of those they were teaching, and to remain there. If, indeed, travelers in a foreign land and those who go to unknown regions are not to ask anything more than food for the day, it is even more imperative for those who are permitted to live in a house not to ask for anything more."*° The same writes also in his last Homily on Matthew: "If it had been good to possess gold, Christ would certainly have given some to His apostles, for He provided them with advantages beyond words.
Yet, not only did He not give them gold; He even forbade them to have any. That is why no shame comes upon Peter in his poverty, but he is glorified when he says: 'Silver and gold
I have none.' "?'
Acts 3:6
10. Concerning the passage of Matthew quoted above, Rabanus says: "This, therefore, is the command He gives to those who preach the gospel of truth, to whom He had first said: 'Freely you have received, freely give.' If, indeed, they preach without expecting a payment, they have no need of gold, silver, or money. For if they had been in possession of silver, they would have seemed to be preaching, not for the sake of the salvation of men, but for their own profit."'* And the same author continues: "Christ, after eliminating wealth, almost takes away the necessities of life in order that the apostles, while they teach the true religion and demonstrate that all things are ruled by divine
Mt. 10:8
CHAPTER VII
providence, might show that they themselves had no concern for the morrow. With this command, He is opposing the philosophers known in common language as Bactroperites, for even though they live in contempt of the world and consider everything to be worthless, yet they take a pouch with them.'"?
Bede agrees when he says of this passage from Mark: He instructed them to take nothing for their journey, but a Mk. 6:8 staff only: "'So great should be a preacher's confidence in God that even lacking provisions for the present life, he should know with utmost certitude that such things will be given to him, otherwise his mind will be concerned with temporal needs and he may be unable to provide others with the goods of eternity."*° The same continues: 'He said this to the apostles in order that they might be secure even without owning or taking with them the necessities of life, be they of major or minor import. That is why He said: 'A staff only,' showing that the faithful owed everything to His ministers who were not to seek anything superfluous.''**
11. Ambrose, in turn, confirms this point in his commentary of these words from Luke: "Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money."
Lk. 9:3
"The perfection required of one who announces God's king~ dom is shown in the gospel command. Being without staff, wallet, or shoes, that is, having no need of assistance from worldly goods, he may feel all the more able to accomplish his task as he has less concern for such things.'
As a further contribution to the same thesis, Ambrose again comments on this passage from Luke: "Carry neither purse nor wallet': "Being forbidden to possess gold, why ibid. 10:4 should we want it? When a poor man asked him for money, the Apostle Peter, first executor of the Lord's will, showed
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
that His commands had not been given in vain and answered: 'Silver and gold I have none.' Yet, it is not so much
Acts 3:6 in having neither gold nor silver that Peter glories, but in observing the command of the Lord who had ordered: 'Do
Mt. 10:9 not keep gold, or silver.' That is to say: Behold, I am a disciple of Christ, and you expect to obtain gold from me?
Christ gave us something much more precious than gold.'
12. Augustine also, in his book "On the Marvels of Sacred Scriptures' agrees with these words of Ambrose when he says: "As a compensation for the alms [he could not give] and as a profession of his poverty, Peter said to the paralytic: "Arise and walk,' thus observing the command of the Master: 'Do not keep gold or silver.' For Peter, indeed, had been released from the wicked Mammon: by the power of his word, he could deliver instantly the man held in bondage by disease.'** Acts 3:6
Mt. 10:9
Bernard, in the second book ""To Pope Eugene" confirms this opinion: "There is no place," he says, 'for idleness when care of all the churches is pressing. For what else ef. 2 Cir, 11:28 did the holy Apostle give you? 'But what I have,' he says,
Acts 3:6
'that I give thee.' And what is that? I know only one thing, that it was neither gold nor silver, for he himself says: 'Silibid. ver and gold I have none.'''*° And later: "Perhaps you may claim these things for yourself on the strength of some other argument, but not by apostolic right, for the Apostle could not have given you what he did not possess.''*°
Jerome says the same thing even more clearly to Ageruchias: "The apostles, who traveled around the whole world,+ had no coins in their belt, no staff in their hands, no shoes on their feet.'?'
+ As then known, consisting in the Mediterranean area, with the possible addition of India.
CHAPTER VIL
Chrysostom, finally, in his "Praises of Paul," says: "Paul possessed no money. For he himself is a witness: 'To this very hour,' he says, 'we hunger and thirst, and we are naked and buffeted.' And why should I talk about money when he often did not even have enough food to eat, or sufficient
1 Cor. 4:11 clothing to cover himself?''3* Clearly, then, this form of poverty, which consists in living without any possessions but in the greatest need, is precisely the one which was imposed upon the apostles and practiced by them.
13. The advice given by Christ to those who desired to walk in the apostles' traces, or rather, in His own, appears in the counsel He gave to the young man, as recounted in Matthew: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast,
Mt. 19:21 and give to the poor, ..
. and come, follow Me." Commenting on this text, Rabanus writes: "We are free to decide whether we want to be perfect or not. If we do, we must sell what we have—not a part of it as did Ananias and Saphira, but all of it, thus preparing for ourselves a treasure in the kingdom of heaven. And even this is not enough for perfection: we must follow the Saviour,'*? since it is a fact that Christ lived in the greatest need. The same Rabanus cf. Acts 5:2 writes a little later: "There is a great difference between the possession of wealth and the love of it. Many who possess it do not love it and many who do not possess it desire it, while many both love and possess it, and yet others rejoice because they neither love nor possess earthly goods. The safest position is that of men who say with the Apostle:
'The world is crucified to me and I to the world.' Rabanus indicates here that a life of extreme poverty, lacking
Gal. 6:14 in goods and riches, is a work of perfection and the safest way and the one best conformed to the crucified Christ.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
14. The Apostle also, in one of his epistles to the Corinthians, gives the same advice: "You know," he writes, "the graciousness of our Lord Jesus Christ—how, being rich,
He became poor for your sakes, that by His poverty, you 2 Cor. 8:9-10 might become rich. In this matter I am giving advice."
And Augustine comments: "'He became poor in the sense that He did not have what the foxes have. In this matter
I am giving advice: this indicates that you should imitate His poverty.'*! Augustine again writes in his book "On cf. Mt. 8:20 the Good of Matrimony': ""Thus, it is not wrong to receive a just man or a prophet in one's house, for he is not expected to have a house of his own in order that he who wishes to follow the perfect Christ may be free to do what is best." By these words Augustine clearly indicates that receiving shelter from another is the best for a man who wishes to follow Christ perfectly. Chrysostom is of the same mind in his Nineteenth Homily on John: "Let us do all those things by which we will imitate Christ. Now,
Christ says: 'The foxes have dens and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.'
In his Ninth Homily on Matthew, he also says:
"Truly, if wealth kept us away from the honor of earthly palaces, it should be despised. When the King of Heaven is proclaiming and saying every day that it is hard to enter the kingdom of heaven with this wealth, should we not throw it all away and abstain from all goods in order to enter this kingdom free?''4 ibid.
15. Jerome, writing to Heliodorus, also concurs: "I do not want you to be afraid of the difficulty of this pilgrimage: you who believe in Christ should also believe in what
He said: 'Seek first the kingdom of God..., and all these Mt. 6:33 cf. ibid. 10:10 things shall be given you besides.' You should not take a
CHAPTER VII
wallet nor a staff: a man who is poor with Christ is rich enough."** The same writes to the monk Rusticus: "If you have any property, sell it and give to the poor; if you have cf. Mt. 19:21 none, you are relieved of a great burden, for in your nakedness you are then able to follow the naked Christ. It is a hard, lofty and troublesome task, but great are the rewards."'** In fact, it is neither hard nor lofty to despise the ownership of material goods— except when this results in destitution.
Gregory Nazianzen covers the same point in the second book of his "Apology": ""They will make of poverty and need a matter of reproach: yet these things are my riches, for not only do they make me proud, but even boastful. It seems that my enemies are speaking of me in this way because I am following in the steps of Him who, being rich...
2 Cor. 8:9 became poor for our sakes. Would that I throw off even these rags in which I am seen to be wrapped, so that in my nakedness I may escape from the thorns of the world that hamper and hold those who strive for God.'"*"
These words of Bernard ring the same note: "In the Gospels are found a counsel of perfection and a remedy against weakness. 'Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth':
Mt. 6:19 this is perfection, since the Son of Man has nowhere to lay ibid. 8:20
His head. Peter and John had neither silver nor gold; Paul cf. Acts 3:6 cf. L Time 6:8 cf. Acts 20:34
Mt. 19:11 was satisfied with simple food and clothing, and even this he obtained by the work of his hands. But not all can accept this teaching, nor can all accept the counsel of chastity.'"*
Gennadius also, writing "'On the Dogmas of the Church," has this to say: "It is good to distribute one's estate and give to the poor, but it is better to make of it a single offering with the intention of following the Lord, and, freed of all care, to be needy with Christ.""' But a man who is able
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
to sustain himself with his hands is not said to be in want, for it is said in the Acts concerning those who had all things in common. ... Nor was there any one among them in want.
Acts 4:32, 34 Finally, in order to discern the best form of renounce~ ment, let us consider the words of Bede on the following passage from Mark: And leaving all things, he ..
. followed Him.
"Levi shows us the form of perfect renouncement Lk. 5:28 to the world when he not only forsakes the profit of taxgathering, but also flees its dangers. He is spurred by so intense a desire to follow the Lord that from this day he will make no reservation whatsoever in his heart concerning any worldly matter or thought."
16. From such clear and evident testimonies of holy doctors and many others we are omitting in order to avoid prolixity, an irrefutable conclusion may be drawn: not only is it permissible, but praiseworthy and perfect, to imitate
Christ and the apostles—not only in their renouncing private ownership, but even in their extreme want of temporal goods consisting in the absence of any possession or money whatsoever. We should not conclude, however, that when private ownership has been given up, possession in com~ mon would be an imperfection. As in the perfection of chastity, there are different degrees surrounding the Church as with a variety of adornments. The perfection of poverty cf. Ps. 44:10* is not always the same as is evident to anyone who considers the question carefully.
17. Nor is there anything to the contrary in the lives of the saints mentioned earlier who happened to have some possessions in common —as if it were impossible for them to teach something different from what they did: in fact, em } This is Lk. 5:28. Mk. 2:14 reads: And he arose and followed im.
CHAPTER VII
pious doctors often admire in others and highly praise those very virtues they know they do not have, as Jerome shows in his letter to Pammachius: "I exalt virginity to heaven, not because it is mine, but because I more greatly admire what I do not have. Preaching to others a quality lacking in oneself, this indeed amounts to a frank and embarrassing confession.
But if I am held down to earth by the weight of my body, is this reason enough not to admire the flight of birds?''*!
Chrysostom strikes the same note in his Eighth Homily on Matthew: "Were you to come now into the desert of Egypt, you would see that it has been made better than paradise. Everywhere may be seen the army of Christ, the royal flock, and the sweetness of the higher virtues... .
These men, lacking all external goods and entirely crucified to the world, taking nothing but the food of poverty, repeatedly exceed even the norms of bodily work.t Nor do they believe that, because of their fasting and watches, they should be idle all the day: on the contrary, imitating the apostles' zeal, they spend their nights in sacred chants and vigils, and their days in prayer and manual work. All of us, both rich and poor, should be ashamed, for while these men who hardly have a thing besides their hands and bodies are attempting with such pain to feed the needy, we, with coins stored by the tens of thousands, hardly ever give of our surplus to the poor." This from Chrysostom who, as a holy and truthful doctor, praises the Egyptian monks' outstanding poverty seemingly to his own shame and to that of others who resemble him.
¢ The quotation from Chrysostom is incomplete and somewhat inaccurate. A translation of the critical text of this particular sentence would read: "They even go further: by their bodily work, they provide food for the needy." This is consonant with the reference to the needy a few lines down.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
18. Similar in all respects are the words of holy Ambrose: "Let us listen," he says, "to what Christ our Lord commands to His priests: 'Every one of you who does not renounce all that he possesses, cannot be My disciple.' I tremble while saying this. For I stand out, accusing my~self, before accusing any others: I mean my own self, for I pronounce my own condemnation.
Christ denies that a man could be His disciple when He sees this man possess~ ing anything, or not abandoning everything he has. And what do we do? How is it that we ourselves read these things or explain them to the people, while not only failing to abandon what we own, but even desiring to acquire those goods we did not have before we came to Christ? Should we not, because of the reproach of our conscience, rather conceal than proclaim what is written? I do not wish to be guilty of a double crime. I confess openly: before the lisLk. 14:33 tening people, I confess that these words are written, even though I know I never fulfilled them. But as soon as we have been warned in this manner, let us hasten to fulfill them; let us pass from the state of the priests of Pharaoh with their earthly possessions, to that of the priests of the Lord, who have no share of the earth, whose portion is cf. Nm. 18:20 the Lord. Such indeed was the one who said: As poor yet enriching many, as having nothing, yet possessing all things;
PaGonn ono this is Paul, who glories in these things."*? Nothing more luminous could be said in support of our thesis than these truthful and humble words of the holy doctor.
19. And the blessed pope Gregory, in the third book of his "Dialogues," describing the life of the wonderful Isaac, has this to say: "The servant of the almighty Lord went a little way out of town, and found a desert place, and there he built himself a humble dwelling. And when many came
CHAPTER VII
to it, at his example they began to be inflamed with the desire of eternal life, and under his leadership they dedicated themselves to the service of the almighty Lord. And when his disciples repeatedly pressed him to accept the goods that were being offered, and to use them as would a monastery, he remained the careful guardian of his poverty, and, holding on to his strong conviction, said to them: 'A monk who seeks any earthly possession is not a true monk.' Thus, he was afraid to lose the security of his destitution as rich misers are usually afraid to lose their perishable wealth.''*4
This from Gregory who, while he himself had once lived in a monastery endowed with his own estate, admires and praises those who refuse even to possess things in common.
Hence, a man who despises a virtue that is not his stands convicted of impious presumption —as if the life of a teacher not entirely conformed to extreme poverty could give any weight to his teaching against the perfection of the poor!
20. Now, when Augustine, opposing the Manichean Adimantus, comments on the aforementioned precept given to the apostles concerning the form of poverty, and says that it is to be spiritually investigated, or, as he proposes elsewhere, that it is to be understood in a permissive sense, he is not differing in the least from what has been established earlier. For while Mark expressly says that He instructed them to take nothing for their journey, Augustine,
Mk. 6:8 agreeing with other commentators, as it appears from what has been said above, teaches that this precept is to be understood literally.** If he denied this in some other place, he would be going at the same time against the truth of the Gospel, against the teachings of the saints, and against his own words. And to say this of such a great doctor is loathsome to the pious ears of Catholic men.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
And so, we should note that, since the apostles were the original founders of the Christian religion and the highest teachers of perfection, — teachers, I mean, both as individuals and as examples of a certain way of life, —we may understand the words of the Lord quoted above to have been said to them as the founders of the Christian religion; and thus, they are understood to be extended to all. But all
Christians are not bound to follow this manner of life, as the Manicheans falsely teach; therefore, Augustine, the axe of the heretics, speaking against them, shows that these words are to be understood in a spiritual sense if they are received as a command to all.
We may also understand that the said words were spoken to the apostles as to the examples of perfection; and thus they are understood in the manner of counsels, which do not oblige as such, but only bind those who voluntarily make profession and vow to observe this form of life.
Furthermore, we may understand that they were spoken to the apostles as to determined persons and to the first preachers of the Evangelical Law. Hence, since two different things are suggested in these words, that is, the abandoning of material goods and the receiving of contributions, the first is understood as having been a command, as the text says, and also the gloss, for Bede writes: ""When the disciples were sent out to preach He instructed them to take nothing for their journey.'"°*+ But the second was not commanded: it was only permitted. Therefore, the gloss on this passage from Luke: Remain in the same house etc. reads:
"He who had forbidden a bag or a wallet permitted food taken for the sake of preaching."°" And Rabanus says, in Mk. 6:8
Lk. 10:7 t Cf. (Q 5£., Off. and 39.
CHAPTER VII
his "Commentary on Matthew': "Thus, it is clear that the Lord did not give this command in such a way that the evangelists would be forbidden to obtain their livelihood from other means than through those who provided for them and to whom they announced the Gospel, otherwise cf. Acts 18:3 the Apostle who obtained his sustenance through the labor of his hands would have broken this precept; but He gave them the power through which they would know that such things were due to them. However, once a power is given, anyone remains free not to use it and, in a certain sense, to give up some of his right."** From such quotations as these it is clearly gathered that the said words of the Lord, in the light of the above considerations, should be taken in a spiritual and in a literal sense, as a counsel, as a command, and as a permission. For this reason, every false accusation of contradiction should be done away with, if the sense of this multiform acception is clearly perceived.
21. Neither is there any opposition to such a stand in the passage of Jerome's letter to Nepotianus where he says that "a man who lives on tithes and is sustained by altarofferings is a naked follower of the naked cross," as if he considered that the summit of perfect poverty consisted in living on tithes and offerings, in the manner of priests and clerics. There are many levels and differences in nakedness, for there is a distinction between nakedness of the heart, and nakedness of the heart and body. Nakedness of the heart comes from a spiritual stripping of every perverse at~ tachment of avarice and cupidity. And of this Gregory says cf. Col. 3:9 in his homily: "It is naked that we must wrestle with a naked adversary, for if a clothed man wrestles with one who is naked, he is more rapidly thrown, for he has something
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
by which he can be held." Now this is understood as applying to all Christians.
22. But nakedness of the heart and body has three levels.
One of them is great, consisting in the rejection of every superfluity and private possession.
And this level, even though it is not compulsory, pertains however to the clerical state and order. It is of this nakedness that Jerome writes to Nepotianus: "If indeed I am the Lord's own portion, . . .
His hereditary share, and if I shall receive no portion among the other tribes, but live on tithes as a levite or a priest, and, while serving the altar, if I am sustained with altar offerings, receiving food and clothing, I shall be content with this and naked I shall follow the naked cross.''®*
Dt32:9 cf. Nm. 18:20
There is another and greater nakedness which consists not only in these things, but also in abandoning the right to possess anything privately and in giving up one's own will; and this level pertains to the regulars and the cenobites, and Jerome says of it to Heliodorus: "I do not want you to bear in mind your earlier privations: the desert loves those who are naked.' By naked he understands not only privation of the ownership of wealth, but also of one's own will, in the same sense as this passage from Bernard's '"'Colloquy of Simon and Jesus': 'Act, therefore, and you, who dispose yourself to abandon all things, remember to count yourself among the things to be abandoned; and even more, most of all and principally abandon yourself, if you plan to follow the One who emptied Himself because of you.''®
Phil. 2:7
Now, there is also a third nakedness, which consists in what has been said above, and furthermore, in the abandonment of all passing wealth, in penury, and in the lack of the needed sustainment, and this level pertains to the apostles and to apostolic men, and concerning it, and commenting
CHAPTER VII
on this passage of Matthew: Whoever gives to one of these Mt. 10:42 little ones but a cup of cold water to drink because he is a disciple, ... he shall not lose his reward, the gloss says:
"The little ones are those who have absolutely nothing in this world."°* Such were the apostles. Thus, Jerome, writing to Exsuperantius, says: "Nobody was poorer than the cf. Mt. 4:18ff. apostles, and nobody gave up so much for the Lord. And the poor widow in the Gospel, who put two mites into the cf. Mk. 12:41 ff. treasury, is preferred to all the wealthy because she gave everything she had."®° If, indeed, as the Lord says, this widow by giving everything kept nothing for herself, she put herself in a state of extreme destitution.
23. It is to this same destitution that the noble widow Paula aspired, of whom Jerome says in praise of her: '"This she had promised by vow: to remain a beggar, to hand down to her daughter not a single coin, and to be buried in a shroud that would belong to someone else.' Describing the happy death of this same woman, he says: '"'Jesus is a witness that not a single piece of money was left by her.
What is more admirable than this virtue in a woman of the highest birth, and once so rich, who gave everything away with such faith that she suffered the deepest state of want?
Let others throw wealth into the treasury, and gifts hanging from golden chains; nobody gave more to the poor than the woman who kept nothing for herself."°" This from Jerome, who also calls Hedibia to this destitution as to something most perfect, in a letter to her in which he says:
'Do you wish to be perfect and to stand in the first rank of dignity? Do as the apostles did. Sell all you have, give cf. Mt. 19:21 to the poor, and follow the Saviour, and in your destitution and solitude, you will be following the naked and lonely cross.'°® By these words he clearly asserts that this
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
poverty reaches the summit of perfection, and that, through it, a man more expressly and closely embraces the nakedness of the cross, and imitates the stripped Crucified.
24. Now, when properly understood, the passage from Gregory, in which he says that there is no sin in possessions as such but in the affection for them," is not at all in contradiction with what has been established. For if anyone believes that sin exists, either causally or formally, in the fact of being rich, he is erring with the Manicheans, and this error Gregory reproves. But if he perceives that wealth is an occasion of sin, he does not deviate from the true interpretation, since Truth Himself says in Mark: "With what difficulty will they who have riches enter the kingdom of God!" Wealth, in fact, offers no difficult obstacle to those who desire to enter the kingdom of God, except by being an occasion of propensity toward evil or of distraction from good. This is clearly shown by the opinions of the saints.
Mk. 10:23
That wealth is an occasion of covetousness to the wealthy, Ambrose demonstrates in his book '"'On Offices': "Unrelenting avarice," he says, "or alluring wealth, while they contaminate those who have riches, are of no assistance to those who have them not. Admitting even that wealth is sometimes useful to a lowly man, to one who craves for it, why should the others be concerned if this one rich man enjoys a greater abundance? Is he more honorable for owning that through which honor is most often lost?''"°
And Bernard, in his "Colloquy of Simon and Jesus," agrees with him: "This is the foremost reason to flee from riches: that hardly or ever can they be owned without attachment. For not only our external wealth, but even our inner riches seem too earthly and clinging, since the heart of man is so easily attached to what he touches frequently.''"!
CHAPTER VII
And Augustine strikes the same note when he says of Psalm One Hundred and Twenty-two: "Such things as these do not procure true wealth, but mendicity, for the more abundant they are, the more do they increase the cravings of covetousness.f Things that foster the avidity of their owner are not true riches."
25. Augustine, in his book "On the Fall of the World," shows how often wealth is the occasion of vanity and pride:
"In riches, there is nothing so much to be dreaded as the disease of pride. A man without riches has no extensive power, nor anything over which to glory.'""? The same, writing "On the Words of the Lord," has this to say: "Pride is what riches beget most easily. Every grain, every seed has its worm. The worm of wealth is pride."'"
That the cravings of covetousness may lead to dispersion is clearly indicated by Gregory in his first book of "Ethics":
"Tt usually happens," he says, "that an abundance of goods releases the mind from the fear of God, since abundance requires this mind to be concerned with more varied occu~ pations. A mind externally dispersed by a manifold activity cannot remain fixed upon interior research.''' The same, in his homily on this passage from Luke: The sower went out...etc., says: "If it had been from us that you had heard that the seed stands as a sign for the word, the field for the earth, the birds for the devil, and the thorns for Lk. 8:5ff. riches, you may well have been induced to doubt: but it is the Lord Himself who deigned to explain what He had said.
Indeed, who would have believed me if I were to have chosen to explain the thorns as meaning riches, particularly since thorns do nothing but pierce, and riches fill with + Augustine's text actually reads: '"'craving and covetousness."'
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
delight? And yet they are truly thorns, for they tear the mind apart by piercing it with thoughts of wealth, and as soon as they have Jed a man all the way to sin, they draw his blood as if he had been wounded.'"'"°
26. Thus, if any man carefully considers what has been said, he will see that although wealth is not formally or causally sinful, yet it is a frequent occasion of sin by distracting from good and inclining toward evil. For this reason, riches are compared to thorns by the Saviour, and are called alluring by Ambrose. For since, as it appears from what has been said,{ they distract in us the rational power, extol the irascible, and entice the concupiscible, they are filled not only with allurement, but also with danger.
Therefore, Augustine writes '"On the Fall of the World":
"Riches themselves, which you believe to be filled with delights, are more abundantly filled with dangers."'"' Since perfection consists not only in the avoidance of sin, but also in the complete elimination of both occasions of sin and obstacles to good — for, as Gregory says in his Ethics, "he alone does not fall into the illegitimate who carefully restrains himself in the use of the legitimate''*—it is transparently clear that although the possession of properties and riches is not sinful as such but legitimate, to give them up and to be voluntarily in want of them for the sake of Christ is an act of perfection.
27. Now, if anyone happens to say that such occasions are given by temporal goods to imperfect minds, and not to the perfect, as if it pertained rather to the state of imperfection to avoid riches and to be in want of them,t this is clearly opposed to the life of Jesus Christ and to His
CE 4G 248.
{Cf. ch. V, | 5.
CHAPTER VII
teaching. And, according to this thesis, neither would Christ have had to be perfectly lacking in riches, nor would
He have taught this to the perfect, and yet it is a fact that He said: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou
Mt. 19:21 hast, etc." And were not the apostles perfect, to whom it had been said: "Do not keep gold'? Commenting on this ibid. 10:9 passage, Ambrose says in his book '"'On Offices": " 'Do not ibid, keep gold, or silver, or money.' With these words, as with a sickle, Christ cuts down the covetousness that sprouts in human hearts.'''"? On this same saying, there is also the Thirty-second Homily of St. John Chrysostom: "He did not say: Do not wish to receive gold, but, if there is a possibility of receiving it from elsewhere, flee from this pernicious disease. Indeed, by these words He cuts off many things.'®°
From all this we are given to understand that in order to avoid the occasion of covetousness, money was forbidden to the apostles, even though they were perfect.
28. Yet it is true that wealth does not have such a strong impact upon the perfect, and that it is not for them such a great occasion of sin; but since the smallest distraction of the intellect, the slightest vicious tendency of the heart, are more disharmonious in the souls of the perfect directed to eternal goods than in the much less perfect souls of those concerned merely with the education of their sons, and the care of their families,f it follows that the perfect renouncement of temporal goods is counseled to the perfect, and not to the imperfect, except if they wish to be perfect. Now, while it is enough for the imperfect to avoid major sins through the observance of the commandments, it is necessary for the perfect to cut out from their mind any t!
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
superfluous consideration, as Gregory teaches in the second book of his "Ethics," using in a spiritual sense the example of the rite and sign of perfection of the Nazirites: "As soon cf. Nm. 6:18 as his consecration is accomplished, a Nazirite is ordered to shave his head and to throw his hair into the fire of sacrifice. For we attain the summit of perfection only when we have so overcome external vices that we even cut away from our mind superfluous thoughts; and to burn these in the fire of sacrifice is certainly to enkindle oneself with the flame of divine love, so that the whole heart may glow in the love of God and that, burning its superfluous thoughts as the hair of the Nazirites, it may consume them through the perfection of devotion."* 29. Neither is the promise of a hundredfold in contra~ diction with what has been established above, because it cf. Mt. 19:29 refers to spiritual goods, as Jerome says in his commentary on Matthew, and also Rabanus who uses almost the same words: '""On the strength of this sentence,"' they say, "some authors refer to the lapse of a thousand years since the resurrection, and claim that now is the time when we should be given a hundredfold of all that we have abandoned, and also eternal life, not understanding that a thing which in other cases may be a deserved reward, appears as a disgrace in the case of spouses: that is, that anyone should give up anything for the Lord in the hope of receiving later a hundredfold. The meaning, indeed, is this: he who shall give up the things of the flesh for the sake of the Saviour shall receive the things of the spirit, and these, in comparison with what he actually deserves, will almost be as the number one hundred compared to a small number.''®
Gregory, in his Sixth Homily on Ezechiel, is of the same opinion: "The holy man does not abandon the things of
CHAPTER VIL
the earth in the hope of possessing them more abundantly in this world. Perfection is represented by the number one hundred because the man who despises temporal goods in the name of the Lord receives perfection of the spirit, so that he ceases to be attracted by what he now despises.
Therefore, he receives a hundred times what he had given when, through his acceptance of the spirit of perfection, he no longer needs the things of the earth even when he is deprived of their possession.'
Bernard is in agreement with this in his sermon on blessed Peter beginning: "Simon Peter said to Jesus..." where he says: "Brethren, what indeed is this hundredfold if not consolations, visitations, and the first-fruits of the spirit that are sweeter than honey?'® And a little later: cf. Eccl. 24:27
"This hundredfold does not consist in a father or a mother, a house or a field, food or clothing, nor indeed in any temporal good whatsoever, but it is certainly more delightful than all such things, it surpasses all of them in sweetness, it holds greater joy than any other, and none of the things desired in this wretched world are worthy of comparison with it.''t 30. Now, if perchance anyone persistently raises objeccf. Mk. 10:29ff. tions, referring to the text of Mark and to that of Augustine against Adimantus," and if he insists that temporal goods were promised by Christ, we will answer that a promise of this kind of giving and receiving must be seen as coming about through a communion of love, and not through possession. Hence, Bede writes in his commentary on this same passage from Mark: There is no one who has left house... : ibid.
"For, certainly, even in this life a man will receive a more + This seems to be a development of original text.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
gracious love from brothers and co-workers attached to him by a spiritual bond.'*° The gloss on the same passage agrees with him: "'All the saints, and all their possessions, are given to him.'"*" And Augustine writes against Adimantus: "The whole world of riches belongs to the faithful."'*°
We should understand at least that this occurs by means of a certain heavenly disposition, as against the teachings of the Manicheans who claimed that temporal goods had been created by the prince of darkness, and that they were promised and given by him alone, but forbidden by Christ.
Therefore, this hundredfold is promised by the Lord in order to confound the perfidy of the heretics, and to remove any distrust from the hearts of the faithful. Thus, the gloss on this passage from Matthew: "All these things shall be given you besides," reads: "All things belong to the sons, and thus all these things shall be given besides, even to those who do not seek them, and from whom they may have been taken away as a test or to whom they may have been given as an opportunity for thanksgiving."*? And Augustine, commenting on this passage from John: "I am going fishing," writes: "How is it that he did not find any other means of support when the Lord had made a promise in these words: 'Seek first the kingdom of God ..., and all these things shall be given you besides?' But precisely this is how the Lord fulfilled what He had promised: For who else placed here the fishes that were to be caught?"
Mt. 6:33
Jae 213 Mt. 6:33
31. Thus it is a fact that, in order to avoid distrust, a promise of this kind is to be understood as working through providence, and not by means of an increase of temporal goods, for this would not eliminate covetousness, but only make it grow. And so Chrysostom, in his Sixty-third
Homily on Matthew, has this to say: "Nothing quenches so
CHAPTER VII
well the thirst of covetousness as abstaining from the passion of material profit, in the same manner as bitter anger is appeased by abstinence and loss of strength. . .
. For it is easier to make living men fly than to appease desire by adding to it."* And Augustine writes in the Eighty-third Book of "Questions": "The hope of acquiring temporal goods .
. . is poison to charity."'? And so, if Christ had promised His disciples a quantitative increase of temporal goods, He would have destroyed charity in them rather than increasing it, for through the promise of a hundredfold of terrestrial possessions, He would have taught that an affluence of temporal goods was to be hoped for, rather than despised.
And to say this is to have a wicked opinion of the teaching of Christ.
32. Neither is the manner of life of the apostles opposed to what has been said, but it agrees with it. Although we read in the acts that the multitude of the believers... had
Acts 4:32 all things in common, and that they would lay at the feet of the apostles the price of what they had sold, it should never be understood that the apostles ever owned anything, ibid. 34ff. either privately or in common, for this community does not refer to them but to the multitude, as the gloss on the same passage proposes: "There is a distinction," it says, "between the order of teachers and the order of listeners.
For the multitude of the faithful, in their despising of material possessions, were mutually united by the bond of love; but the apostles, resplendent in their power, proclaimed the myscf. ibid. 5:12 teries of Christ.'"°? Thus, the gloss, which declares in this text that in like manner as this community of riches was proper to the multitude, so also the power of miracles belonged to the apostles.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
Nor is there any contradiction to this in what follows: to wit, that money would be laid at the feet of the same apostles, for, as Jerome says to Demetriades, it was done
"so that they would teach that wealth was to be trodden upon," or, certainly, in order that the multitude would put their wealth and themselves at the disposition of the ef. ibid. 4:34 apostles, as Ambrose teaches in his commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says, speaking of them: "'As far as the present life is concerned, they appeared poor, but they lavished spiritual riches upon the faithful: they were destitute on earth, but wealthy in heaven, as having nothing, yet possessing all things. This was one of the apostles' glorious attributes: that without having the cares or reputation of proprietors, they owned not only the things possessed, but even the masters of these things.'"'
It is suggested here that while the apostles remained poor, the primitive Church was at their disposal, both as regards persons and things. They preferred, however, to commit to others the disposition of things, as we read later in the Acts:
It is not desirable that we should forsake the word of God and serve at tables. This they said in order to avoid being distracted from their ministering, and not for the sake of possessing anything through this service. Peter also, in the same town where these things were occurring, answered a beggar: "Silver and gold I have none." And the gloss comments: "Remembering this command, 'Do not keep gold or silver,' he did not keep for himself the money that had been laid at the apostles' feet, but made use of it for the needy, because the apostles had renounced ownership.'
2 Cor. 6:10
Acts 6:2 ibid. 3:6
Mt. 10:9
33. This same form of poverty John the Evangelist also observed together with his disciples. As written in his
"Legend" concerning two of these who had given up great
CHAPTER VII
wealth and were suffering temptations in their excessive need, he said: "Is the hand of God ever unable to make his servants abound in wealth? In such matters He has ordained a striving of souls, so that those who refused in His name to possess temporal goods would know that they were to possess eternal riches.''""
The Apostle Thaddeus observed strict poverty, as it is recounted in the first book of "Church History." After Christ's ascension, when King Abgarus, healed by him, commanded that gold and silver be given to him, he refused it, saying: "If we give up our own goods, how could we accept those of another?''®* And the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians, speaking both of himself and of the other apostles: To this very hour we hunger and thirst, and we
1 Cor. 4:11 are... buffeted, and have no fixed abode. And the gloss says at this point: "To this very hour, that is, without cease."°? And elsewhere Paul writes to the Corinthians:
In hunger and thirst, ...in cold and nakedness. The gloss quoted above shows this state of need to be, not temporary, but permanent, and so does the excerpt from Chrysostom's
OS Corlile27 "On the Praises of Paul.'"'t Hence, if Paul did say at one cf. 2 Cor. 6:10; time that he had all things, and in abundance, it cannot be construed as referring to opulence or affluence of material goods, but to spiritual wealth. In this same vein, Augustine writes in his work "On Beatific Life': ""No perfect man is in Phil. 4:12 need of anything. What his body requires, he takes if it is available. If it is not, he is not crushed by its absence.'
34. Now, if from the fact that Paul said of himself that he was exposed to the peril of robbers, anyone were to draw the conclusion that he had money, such a contender would cf. 2 Cor. 11:26
+ CE { 12.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
be clearly contradicting Ambrose's commentary on the same passage: "Since the devil could not kill him in the city, he prompted robbers to attack him along the road, although he had with him nothing a robber could covet.'"°* Likewise, Chrysostom writes in his ''Praises of Paul': "When
Job owned countless sheep and oxen, he was generous to the poor. Paul, who owned nothing but his body, took good care of the needy by [the work of] this body alone.'"*"
Hence, we may imagine both Paul's wonderful poverty in that he owned but his body and possessed not a thing a robber could desire, and his wonderful wealth by which he cared, not only for himself, but for others, abundantly.
35. Finally, there is nothing contrary to perfection in the fact that Christ had a purse: all we have to do is consider with a pious mind how and why He deigned to have one. The only-begotten Son of God, being rich towards all, became poor for our sakes, so much so that He had to depend on others for food; and it is not without a great amount of heavenly counsel that He gave and entrusted the purse to one of the disciples whom He knew in advance
Rom. 10:12
2 Cor. 8:9; cf. Jn. 12:6 to be a thief and betrayer. If Christ had a purse, it was for the consolation of the weak, the confusion of the wicked, and the enlightenment of the perfect.
Such an act—that is, having a purse—was in Christ's case a sign of condescension towards THE WEAK, for it was intended as a consolation for those who were reluctant to be without one of their own, as Augustine writes in "The Labor of Monks": "The Lord, in His accustomed mercy, had pity on the weak: while angels could have attended to His needs, He yet had a purse wherein to keep the money received from the faithful and required for their support.
This purse He entrusted to Judas.'% cf. Mt. 4:11
Chen 236
CHAPTER VII
36. As regards THE WICKED, having a purse was a warn~ ing, which served first as a refutation of those heretics who reprove and detest purses as a matter of principle. In his
Fiftieth Homily on John, Augustine says: "Why did He have a purse, He whom angels served, had it not been that His Church was to have a purse?'?°* He had one in order cf. Mt. 4:11 to show that it is not a sin. Thus does Augustine refute the Manicheans who were condemning the Church because of its ownership of temporal wealth.
This was also a warning to misers who crave for a purse, since none of Christ's disciples were lost, except the one who carried it. Although the Lord had given it to Judas in the hope of allaying his covetousness, the disciple burned with such a fire of cupidity that he was to sell the Lord
Himself for a small sum of money. Chrysostom says in his Sixty-fifth Homily on John: "If we try to understand why
Christ entrusted the purse of the poor to a thief and its administration to a miser, [we will see that] it was in order to remove an occasion of sin: for with the purse Judas had enough to satisfy his greed. Yet, because of his manifold wickedness, which Christ in His great condescension toward him desired to repress, He did not accuse him of pilfering, but blocked his pernicious concupiscence and removed every occasion of sin."!° Thus does Chrysostom openly declare that the cause of the great crime was not need brought about by poverty, but malice in a covetous mind.
37. Finally, as regards THE PERFECT, having a purse was an act of enlightenment. In terms of possession, perfection for those in the ecclesiastical state, particularly for cenobites, consists in following the example of Christ and His disciples: no one has anything in proper, but all have everything in common.
In his Sixty-second Homily on John,
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
Augustine says: "The Lord had a purse. Keeping what had been offered by the faithful, He attended to His own needs and to those of the other poor. Such was the first instance of Church finances. When Christ gives the command not to be concerned about the morrow, we should understand it, not as a precept forbidding the saints to keep money, but as a warning not to serve God for the sake of profit.'"°°
Augustine again, describing the regulars' way of life as treated in the First Question of the Twelfth Cause, writes as follows: "Since by the very receiving of Orders the brothers of this congregation of ours have renounced not only their possessions but even their own will, they should certainly not hold, possess, give or receive anything without their superior's permission.'"°"
38. As regards the manner of spending, the form of perfection existed in the heads of the Church. Following the example of Christ, they were free to spend the Church's wealth to support its ministers and to alleviate the misery of the poor. Referring to the purse of Christ, Chrysostom, in his Seventy-first Homily on John, asks the following question: "How is it that He prohibited the use of wallet, staff and money while He Himself had a purse?"' And he answers: "For the service of the poor, in order to teach you that extensive support must be given to the deeply destitute and the sorely tried. For in His dispensation, Christ acted in many ways for the sake of our enlightenment.' By these words Chrysostom shows that it befits perfect men to care for the destitute, this being particularly true of the heads of the Church who in no way impair their perfection by so caring for their flock. t In Canon Non Dicatis of Gratian's ''Decretals."'
CHAPTER VII
Prosper concurs in his work "On Contemplative Life":
"Since holy men knew that the Church's wealth consisted in the prayers of the faithful, the ransom of sin, and the dowry of the poor, they claimed none of these goods for their exclusive use, but spent them as a trust belonging to the poor.
This they accomplished by despising riches while possessing them; by keeping them not for themselves but for others; by seeking them not out of covetousness but in order to provide pious assistance; by possessing the Church's goods jointly with those who had nothing; by not giving any of this wealth to a man who had enough for his own needs— since it is mere waste to give to those who have.'
39. As regards the manner of using ecclesiastical goods, the form of perfection existed in the apostles and others who promised to live in the same poverty. Out of love for poverty, they always desired to be without a purse. Yet, they consented to have one in cases of obvious necessity.
Christ Himself was supported by His followers and by the women who accompanied Him, as it is written in Luke:
With Him were... certain women... who used to provide for them} out of their means. And, as the Evangelist indiLk. 8:2f. cf. ibid. 9:53 cates, when he traveled through Samaria and came to a city where He could find no shelter, He lived by His purse, for it is written in John: His disciples had gone away into the town to buy food. Commenting on this passage from Luke:
"When I sent you forth without purse or wallet," the gloss Jn. 4:8
Lk. 22:35 says: "When traveling through inhospitable country, it is permissible to carry more supplies than we would in our own land."??° A traveler carrying more than he would in his own land may still be quite poor.
+ Bonaventure has "for Him."
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
If anyone objects that the form of perfection may never be abandoned, let Bede answer with his comment on this passage from Luke: "But now, let him who has a purse ibid. 22:36 take it, and likewise a wallet.": "The same rule of life does not apply in times of persecution as in times of peace.
Some virtues must be kept always and steadfastly, while others must be adapted with discretion to the circumstances.
Who would ignore that mercy, kindness, humility, patience, modesty, chastity, faith, hope, love and other such virtues must be preserved without respite? As for hunger, thirst, vigils, destitution, reading, the singing of psalms, labor, cf. Col. 3:12 teaching, silence and other such practices, if anyone believes they must be constant, he is not only depriving himself of their fruit, but also deserving the blame of unsound obstination. Hence the Master and Lord of Virtues, intending to suggest proper discretion when He sent His disciples out to preach, instructed them to take nothing for their journey, that is, He directed that those who preach the Gospel should have their living from the Gospel. But in case of immediate danger of death to either flock or shepherd, He decreed a rule that was suited to the circumstances,
Mk. 6:8
1 Cor. 9:14 that is, He permitted the carrying of enough money for food, until the insanity of persecutors had abated and the time to spread the Gospel had returned.''™"*
40. Clearly, then, for the six reasons given above and because of a threefold usefulness—conforming in some way with the perfection of the number six''? — Jesus Christ, the Splendor and Mirror of all perfection, possessed a purse: once He consoles the weak wonderfully, twice He confounds the wicked, and three times, He enlightens the perfect. Now this is most worthy of admiration, praise, and imitation:
Christ remained in the state of poverty and yet did not
CHAPTER VII
condemn the state of wealth, conforming Himself to those who possessed money while perfectly preserving the form of perfect poverty. Wherefore the gloss on this passage from Matthew: "Go to the sea," explains: "The Lord was so poor that He lacked money to pay the tribute. It is true that Judas
Mt. 17:26 kept the common funds in his purse, but Christ acted in this way because He would not turn to His own use that which belonged to the poor, and so He gave us an example.'
The purse of Christ may not be used as an incentive to cupidity, but as an example of piety and poverty. As there was nothing of temporal glory or pleasure in our crucified
Saviour, so also in His deeds and teachings there was nothing to indicate that the riches of the world were to be an object of desire. On the contrary, in order to inflame us with love for perfect poverty, when Christ entered the world to assault the enemy's stronghold, He came as the poorest, from the poorest mother; when offering a victim to God the Father in priestly sacrifice, He was suspended naked on the cf. Is. 48:10 cross; and all of His life was a road of poverty, so much so that, as in the case of perfect straightness,} the intermediate state of His truth never deviated from its extremities. As for us, wrapped as with an armor in the nakedness of this unconquered Leader, and hoping in none but the One who said: "Take courage, I have overcome the world," let us
Jn. 16:33 bear insults from our enemies in the name of the poor and crucified Christ.
+ This refers to Plato's definition of straightness (found in the works of Parmenides): '"The straight is that whose middle does not deviate from the extremities'
— meaning here that Christ was poor during His life as He was poor at His birth and at His death.
>i beso xf 0H Geet | rb 4 ffi 1 sre ; * livaeke peg bg vyeem ofa wleyab dab ee "xi i. inehy B ast ber errno winnie Liggt Baars | yeasts aa iy sr maker exGorg yearoog al Bs wmalizgge a hzping 'eee ati nik t ei Jodis 'oe ma ¢ os ae '* WR, engl a 40
= fA car ei! de aa Se dhize.2 ats Lewes 103 ow ie a :
; ¢ as. , >apCON io a oY I a